Duane wrote:
Nelson B. Bolyard wrote:
Duane wrote:
Heikki Toivonen wrote:
Several pages on mozilla (Google: site:mozilla.org or site:mozilla.com
Libya) show the crypto export restrictions blurb ("countries and
nationals of Libya yada yada").
These notices are actually not the same. Some list Taliban controlled
areas of Afghanistan, some list parts of Serbia, and so on.
it gets even more fun when you are in some US jurisdictions as the
courts found government restrictions were breaking the US
constitution :)
Oh, that would be sweet. :-) Have you a citable court precendent?
The one of the top of my head, is a 6th circuit ruling... Unfortunately
it's outside of business hours in the US and lawyer who cited it to me
won't answer his phone till monday...
Although this seems to be relevant...
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=6th&navby=case&no=00a0117p
The issue of whether or not the First Amendment protects encryption
source code is a difficult one because source code has both an
expressive feature and a functional feature. The United States does not
dispute that it is possible to use encryption source code to represent
and convey information and ideas about cryptography and that encryption
source code can be used by programmers and scholars for such
informational purposes. Much like a mathematical or scientific formula,
one can describe the function and design of encryption software by a
prose explanation; however, for individuals fluent in a computer
programming language, source code is the most efficient and precise
means by which to communicate ideas about cryptography.
The district court concluded that the functional characteristics of
source code overshadow its simultaneously expressive nature. The fact
that a medium of expression has a functional capacity should not
preclude constitutional protection. Rather, the appropriate
consideration of the medium's functional capacity is in the analysis of
permitted government regulation.
The Supreme Court has explained that "all ideas having even the
slightest redeeming social importance," including those concerning "the
advancement of truth, science, morality, and arts" have the full
protection of the First Amendment. ... This protection is not reserved
for purely expressive communication. The Supreme Court has recognized
First Amendment protection for symbolic conduct, such as draft-card
burning, that has both functional and expressive features. ...
The Supreme Court has expressed the versatile scope of the First
Amendment by labeling as "unquestionably shielded" the artwork of
Jackson Pollack, the music of Arnold Schoenberg, or the Jabberwocky
verse of Lewis Carroll. ... Though unquestionably expressive, these
things identified by the Court are not traditional speech. Particularly,
a musical score cannot be read by the majority of the public but can be
used as a means of communication among musicians. Likewise, computer
source code, though unintelligible to many, is the preferred method of
communication among computer programers.
Because computer source code is an expressive means for the exchange of
information and ideas about computer programming, we hold that it is
protected by the First Amendment.
--
Best regards,
Duane
http://www.cacert.org - Free Security Certificates
http://www.nodedb.com - Think globally, network locally
http://www.sydneywireless.com - Telecommunications Freedom
http://e164.org - Because e164.arpa is a tax on VoIP
"I do not try to dance better than anyone else.
I only try to dance better than myself."
_______________________________________________
dev-tech-crypto mailing list
dev-tech-crypto@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-crypto
